Verses Misused to teach Original Sin

[Inspector Javert]

There is not a just man on earth who knows to do good and does it not.

Correct, everyone who knows good from evil (i.e. has the law) chooses to disobey it:
That is an active choice which has nothing to do with "Original Sin" or someone's state of being at birth.
(Other than, perhaps to say that therefore, they are inherently pre-disposed to disobedience which no one denies).

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

"HAVE" sinned....
"COME" short...
Again, also teaches us that sin is an active and willful disobedience to revealed law, that is not "Original Sin".

There is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Yes, none "DO GOOD". All make a willful choice to disobey. That is not "Original Sin" nor an inheritance of guilt.

Indeed, that is quite consistent with this:
"Jacob and Esau having done neither good nor evil..."

It would appear then, that infants do NEITHER good NOR evil....
and given the verse you quote above, when an adult who knows the law makes a willful choice, than it is not good, but rather evil.

That's not "Original Sin".

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Indeed, all who have law, do sin, and are therefore un-righteous.

The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?

Yes, the human heart is deceitful and pre-disposed to sin. Even Eve's heart decieved her in the garden. If in a sin-sick world with Demonic temptation, surrounded by sinful people, with lusts which drive us to wickedness....our hearts, the seat of rebellion against God will deceive us.
That's not "Original Sin".

All we like sheep have gone astray, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Yes, like sheep we all actively "GO" somewhere, "Original Sin" teaches that they were lambed out in a lost wilderness, not that they "GO ASTRAY" as the Scriptures teach.

I don't know any shepherd who's ewes aren't safely within the fold when they are lambing (not a good one anyway).

That verse speaks against the notion of Original Sin.

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Yes, iniquities "Carry us away" and we "fade", that's not "Original Sin"....That's a transition from one state to another.

Original Sin teaches that the leaf was always dead and dry, which gives it no opportunity to fade, and it teaches that we were always "away" and therefore there's really no need for our iniquities to "carry" us anywhere.

Where are iniquities carrying you to if Original Sin is true?
From the dead hopeless wilderness of sin to the dead hopeless wilderness of sin?

And more and more and more.

Yes, there are more and more, hundreds of verses, all of which teach that it is OUR iniquites (not someone else's) which bring us death, drag us astray, cause us to fade, make us un-righteous etc....
There are none however, which teaches the Augustinian notion of Original Guilt or Original Sin.

We all sin when we knowingly transgress the law.

 

[Van]

We reconcile it quite easily. One says we die spiritually when we sin, the other does not say that. Nowhere in Scripture does it say we die spiritually due to Adam's sin...but we DO have clear Scripture that we die in OUR trespasses and sins in which we once walked. So when you get to a passage like in Adam all die, so as in Christ all live, it must be understood that we die in like manner as Adam did since he ushered sin into the world...and in Christ we live in like manner He does as He ushered in life to the world.

I think we have a mantra, "no where in scripture does it say" this or that.

1) Sin causes a separation from our holy God. "But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear." (Isaiah 59:2)

2) When we sin, we do not immediately physically die. Adam did not physically die on the day he sinned, he lived for years and years. But on the day Adam sinned, he died. So that leaves spiritual death.

3) Thus scripture says we are made alive together with Christ, teaching that when we are separated from God we are not alive, thus dead.

In summary on the day Adam sinned he was separated from God, and this constituted his spiritual death. And so all who are in Adam are in a separated from God state, referred to as spiritually dead. To be made sinners, and sinners are separated from God, is to be made in a separated from God spiritually dead state. It is a lock.

 

[Winman]

I think we have a mantra, "no where in scripture does it say" this or that.

1) Sin causes a separation from our holy God. "But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear." (Isaiah 59:2)

Yes, but this says when we actively sin we are separated from God. It does not say we are born that way.

2) When we sin, we do not immediately physically die. Adam did not physically die on the day he sinned, he lived for years and years. But on the day Adam sinned, he died. So that leaves spiritual death.

Correct, we spiritually die the moment we sin. We are not born spiritually dead. In fact, you must first be alive to die, so it is impossible to be spiritually dead unless you were first spiritually alive. Things that were never alive cannot be said to be dead.

3) Thus scripture says we are made alive together with Christ, teaching that when we are separated from God we are not alive, thus dead.

Yes, we are made alive together with Christ, but this does not prove we are born dead. We spiritually die when we knowingly sin as Adam did, and we are made alive AGAIN when we receive Christ.

In summary on the day Adam sinned he was separated from God, and this constituted his spiritual death. And so all who are in Adam are in a separated from God state, referred to as spiritually dead. To be made sinners, and sinners are separated from God, is to be made in a separated from God spiritually dead state. It is a lock.

The question is WHEN a person becomes "in Adam". No one can be spiritually dead unless they were first spiritually alive. When a person knowingly chooses to sin they die and become "in Adam". This is when they are "made" sinners. Likewise, those who believe as Jesus did are "made" righteous.

Your interpretation of Romans 5:19 is inconsistent with Paul's form of argument used, you believe all men are unconditionally made sinners because of Adam, whereas only a few men are conditionally made righteous by Christ. That is inconsistent.

The only consistent view that fits reality is that all men who conditionally sin as Adam did are "made sinners", and all men who conditionally believe as Jesus did are "made righteous".

This explanation also fits the biblical definition of "made" where it is shown over and over that one man makes another to sin by example.

1 Kin 15:34 And he did evil in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin.

Did king Baasha's sins actually transform other Israelites into sinners? No, but king Baasha "made" men to sin by his example. This is what Romans 5:19 means when it says by Adam's disobedience many were "made" sinners. This is a very common statement in scripture, that does not mean what Van wants it to mean. It simply means by Adam's example that others followed many were made sinners.

 

[DHK]

I am simply believing what the scriptures say literally. I realize it is a parable, but parables represent spiritual truths, so if Jesus spoke of a person who has never sinned, I believe him.

And who would qualify as this person who never sinned? Well, we know from scripture that Jacob and Esau had not sinned before they were born, and many children die before or shortly after birth, so children would qualify as these persons.

Jesus never taught that a grown man never sinned. You teach that. It is heresy. It goes against 1John 1:8,10, which, BTW, is making Christ a liar, and stating that there is no truth in you. Read it for yourself.
There is no "sinless" adult.
He was a sinful man, far more sinful than the prodigal son, who at least had repented of his sin. The elder son (note: elder), showed no sign of repentance in his life whatsoever. He was angry and displeased that his younger brother had repented and that his father was rejoicing over it. What kind of man is that?? Not a just one! Again, your "one word-one definition" hermeneutic causes you to interpret the passage with great error and consequently you teach error and not the truth.

I don't believe this is speaking of little children, but men who understand right from wrong.

My view does not contradict any of these scriptures if you understand they are speaking of grown men who know right from wrong, and not speaking of unborn or very small children.

It seems you are unable to follow a discussion.
Here is the verse in question.

"There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents more than 99 just persons..."
1. Your "one word-one definition" method of interpretation teaches heresy.
2. The verse is not talking of children.
3. Jesus is speaking of the Pharisees; grown men. All one hundred are sinners.
4. One sinner (example: Nicodemus) came to Christ.
5. There is joy in heaven or that one sinner that repented (such as Nicodemus) than 99 "just" (or 99 people who think they are just and call themselves just).
--If they were truly "just" all 99 would have repented, as Nicodemus had, then there would have been joy in heaven over 100 sinners that had repented and become just persons, but that is not what happened, is it?
--Jesus is speaking to adults--all of whom are sinners and guilty of eternal death. Their "just" or "righteousness" is a self-righteousness, condemns them, not justifies them.

 

[Winman]

Jesus never taught that a grown man never sinned. You teach that. It is heresy. It goes against 1John 1:8,10, which, BTW, is making Christ a liar, and stating that there is no truth in you. Read it for yourself.
There is no "sinless" adult.

Jesus certainly taught that a grown man had not sinned in Luke 15:29-32.

Of course, this was a parable as you say. I believe the elder son was a person who died as a small child before they could sin. That doesn't mean an unborn baby will remain a fetus in heaven for eternity, it is pretty safe to assume he would be older, probably an adult.

He was a sinful man, far more sinful than the prodigal son, who at least had repented of his sin. The elder son (note: elder), showed no sign of repentance in his life whatsoever. He was angry and displeased that his younger brother had repented and that his father was rejoicing over it. What kind of man is that?? Not a just one! Again, your "one word-one definition" hermeneutic causes you to interpret the passage with great error and consequently you teach error and not the truth.

He was not a sinner, his own father called him "Son", and said "thou art EVER with me, and ALL that I have is thine". This is not a lost person.

It seems you are unable to follow a discussion.
Here is the verse in question.

"There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents more than 99 just persons..."
1. Your "one word-one definition" method of interpretation teaches heresy.
2. The verse is not talking of children.
3. Jesus is speaking of the Pharisees; grown men. All one hundred are sinners.
4. One sinner (example: Nicodemus) came to Christ.
5. There is joy in heaven or that one sinner that repented (such as Nicodemus) than 99 "just" (or 99 people who think they are just and call themselves just).
--If they were truly "just" all 99 would have repented, as Nicodemus had, then there would have been joy in heaven over 100 sinners that had repented and become just persons, but that is not what happened, is it?
--Jesus is speaking to adults--all of whom are sinners and guilty of eternal death. Their "just" or "righteousness" is a self-righteousness, condemns them, not justifies them.

You need to go to Matthew 18 where Jesus repeats this parable. There he is speaking of children. Read for yourself.

Mat 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Note in verses 12-13 Jesus repeats the same parable found in Luke 15. Note that in verse 14 he says it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one OF THESE LITTLE ONES should perish.

Jesus was absolutely speaking of little children when he told this parable.

 

[DHK]

Correct, everyone who knows good from evil (i.e. has the law) chooses to disobey it:
That is an active choice which has nothing to do with "Original Sin" or someone's state of being at birth.
(Other than, perhaps to say that therefore, they are inherently pre-disposed to disobedience which no one denies).

"HAVE" sinned....
"COME" short...
Again, also teaches us that sin is an active and willful disobedience to revealed law, that is not "Original Sin".

Yes, none "DO GOOD". All make a willful choice to disobey. That is not "Original Sin" nor an inheritance of guilt.

Indeed, that is quite consistent with this:
"Jacob and Esau having done neither good nor evil..."

It would appear then, that infants do NEITHER good NOR evil....
and given the verse you quote above, when an adult who knows the law makes a willful choice, than it is not good, but rather evil.

That's not "Original Sin".

Indeed, all who have law, do sin, and are therefore un-righteous.

Yes, the human heart is deceitful and pre-disposed to sin. Even Eve's heart decieved her in the garden. If in a sin-sick world with Demonic temptation, surrounded by sinful people, with lusts which drive us to wickedness....our hearts, the seat of rebellion against God will deceive us.
That's not "Original Sin".

Yes, like sheep we all actively "GO" somewhere, "Original Sin" teaches that they were lambed out in a lost wilderness, not that they "GO ASTRAY" as the Scriptures teach.

I don't know any shepherd who's ewes aren't safely within the fold when they are lambing (not a good one anyway).

That verse speaks against the notion of Original Sin.

Yes, iniquities "Carry us away" and we "fade", that's not "Original Sin"....That's a transition from one state to another.

Original Sin teaches that the leaf was always dead and dry, which gives it no opportunity to fade, and it teaches that we were always "away" and therefore there's really no need for our iniquities to "carry" us anywhere.

Where are iniquities carrying you to if Original Sin is true?
From the dead hopeless wilderness of sin to the dead hopeless wilderness of sin?

Yes, there are more and more, hundreds of verses, all of which teach that it is OUR iniquites (not someone else's) which bring us death, drag us astray, cause us to fade, make us un-righteous etc....
There are none however, which teaches the Augustinian notion of Original Guilt or Original Sin.

We all sin when we knowingly transgress the law.

Mr. Inspector....
I would expect you to inspect the conversation a little better than that before entering in.
Winman quoted two verses. I will repeat them for you:

Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

and

Luke 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

Concerning these verses, first notice the context:
Luke 15:1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
--He was speaking to the Pharisees and scribes specifically (vs.2), but he was also surrounded by the "publicans and sinners."

Concerning verse 7, Winman contends that the "99 just persons which need no repentance," are sinless men because that is what Jesus said. That is the reason I gave the Scriptures that I did. There is no such thing as a sinless man. Jesus was speaking to Pharisees and scribes (the very ones he soundly condemned in Matthew 23), and to "the publicans and sinners." All of these people had sinned grievously in their lifetimes and many, many times. Some of them would be the very ones to put Christ to death.
Winman is calling them "just...which need no repentance" taking it very literally, because he follows a "one word-one meaning" method of interpretation which leads to heresy. It is wrong.
The word "just" here means "self-righteous." It indicates those who think they are just, and think they need no repentance.
Hence, there is joy in heaven over one of these that truly does repent, such as Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea. Such Pharisees that convert to Christ were far and few between. The angels rejoice when such a one repented and entered the Kingdom of God. The other 99 were not just in God's eyes, only in their own eyes.
"Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees you can in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Compare scripture with scripture. We are speaking of adults here, not children.

The other verse comes from a parable, where a man had two sons. It is the parable of the prodigal son.
Winman actually believes the elder son's testimony of himself!!
What did he say of himself:
"Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment..."
--What a lie!!
His very anger was sin. It in itself was a transgression. Winman paints this person as sinless.
He is not; in fact if anyone in this picture was unsaved it is the elder son. There are no visible fruits of repentance in his life. He is not happy that his brother came home; not happy that his father "found his son;" not happy that they are rejoicing about his reconciliation; not very happy at all. In fact he is selfish, and angry about the whole matter.
But Winman paints this individual as sinless and just.

I quoted the Scripture to show that all men are sinners, including the elder brother, and the 99 Pharisees who were called "just."
They are not infants. They were wicked people who made choices to sin.

 

[Winman]

His very anger was sin. It in itself was a transgression. Winman paints this person as sinless.

Complaining is not always a sin. We see persons in heaven complaining in Revelation.

Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Here we see saints in heaven complaining. They are impatient and cry for revenge on those who had killed them.

The Lord is very patient with these persons and gives them a white robe, and tells them to rest for a season.

So, heaven might not be exactly as you have all figured out. It seems persons can and do complain in heaven. Likewise, I believe the elder son complained because he was never given a big celebration. Likewise, Jesus had told in the parable of the lost sheep that there was more joy over this one sinner who repented, than 99 just persons who never went astray and need no repentance.

Look, if you don't want to believe these parables, that is your choice, but it is Jesus who spoke of 99 persons who did not go astray, it was Jesus that told us of the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandments at any time.

But you can believe whatever you choose to believe.

 

[DHK]

Jesus certainly taught that a grown man had not sinned in Luke 15:29-32.

No he didn't. You believe the testimony of that lying sinful elder brother.
Those are his words. Follow the story of the parable.

Of course, this was a parable as you say. I believe the elder son was a person who died as a small child before they could sin. That doesn't mean an unborn baby will remain a fetus in heaven for eternity, it is pretty safe to assume he would be older, probably an adult.

Every adult on earth is a sinner, no exceptions except for Christ.
The Bible teaches that over and over again. And that is why I quoted you those verses. Do you not believe the Word?

He was not a sinner, his own father called him "Son", and said "thou art EVER with me, and ALL that I have is thine". This is not a lost person.

I am God's son also. But I still sin.
1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
--That is quite a condemnation you bring upon yourself.

The father is speaking of an inheritance. The younger son took his inheritance. He divided his inheritance among the two sons. Now the rest of the inheritance (all that he has, or all that is left) is the elder son's. He left everything to the two sons. The younger son took his portion and went out and wasted it.

You need to go to Matthew 18 where Jesus repeats this parable. There he is speaking of children. Read for yourself.

No I don't; it is all irrelevant. The context is given in Luke 15:1-3, specifically vs. 2:
Luke 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
--He was addressing the Pharisees and scribes who murmured against him. They were not children.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Mr. Inspector....
I would expect you to inspect the conversation a little better than that before entering in.
Winman quoted two verses. I will repeat them for you:

Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

and

Luke 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

Concerning these verses, first notice the context:
Luke 15:1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
--He was speaking to the Pharisees and scribes specifically (vs.2), but he was also surrounded by the "publicans and sinners."

Concerning verse 7, Winman contends that the "99 just persons which need no repentance," are sinless men because that is what Jesus said. That is the reason I gave the Scriptures that I did. There is no such thing as a sinless man. Jesus was speaking to Pharisees and scribes (the very ones he soundly condemned in Matthew 23), and to "the publicans and sinners." All of these people had sinned grievously in their lifetimes and many, many times. Some of them would be the very ones to put Christ to death.
Winman is calling them "just...which need no repentance" taking it very literally, because he follows a "one word-one meaning" method of interpretation which leads to heresy. It is wrong.
The word "just" here means "self-righteous." It indicates those who think they are just, and think they need no repentance.
Hence, there is joy in heaven over one of these that truly does repent, such as Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea. Such Pharisees that convert to Christ were far and few between. The angels rejoice when such a one repented and entered the Kingdom of God. The other 99 were not just in God's eyes, only in their own eyes.
"Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees you can in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Compare scripture with scripture. We are speaking of adults here, not children.

The other verse comes from a parable, where a man had two sons. It is the parable of the prodigal son.
Winman actually believes the elder son's testimony of himself!!
What did he say of himself:
"Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment..."
--What a lie!!
His very anger was sin. It in itself was a transgression. Winman paints this person as sinless.
He is not; in fact if anyone in this picture was unsaved it is the elder son. There are no visible fruits of repentance in his life. He is not happy that his brother came home; not happy that his father "found his son;" not happy that they are rejoicing about his reconciliation; not very happy at all. In fact he is selfish, and angry about the whole matter.
But Winman paints this individual as sinless and just.

I quoted the Scripture to show that all men are sinners, including the elder brother, and the 99 Pharisees who were called "just."
They are not infants. They were wicked people who made choices to sin.

Fair enough then:

Certainly, no person, once they know the law, are of age etc...who is of age to know right from wrong is without sin.

I don't think Winman believes that there is such a thing as a genuine adult who is without sin.
The "elder son" he sees as an infant, simply personified by an adult. I don't think he is contending that any adults are without sin.

I don't view these parables as he does, inasmuch as I don't think Jesus is particularly trying to give us a lesson in Hamartiology in general with them....I don't think we are supposed to infer far-reaching conclusions about the nature of sin from them.

All of the characters are fictitious characters and they don't ALL have to necessarily represent an actual scenario which ever obtains. I.E. and elder son who has been with his father for YEARS, and yet is without sin. The point of signifigance in the story of the Prodigal Son is the relationship between the younger son, and the father who do personify REAL PERSONS (i.e. us and God)

I don't necessarily think the older Son has to represent any realistic person except as he represents an idea or attitude which is not in keeping with the moral of the story. So, I do think Winman may take these parables a little too far.

But, I don't think he believes that any adults are without sin.

 

[Winman]

I don't think Winman believes that there is such a thing as a genuine adult who is without sin.
The "elder son" he sees as an infant, simply personified by an adult. I don't think he is contending that any adults are without sin.

Correct, the elder son is a child who died before he knew right from wrong and was capable of sin. He has been in heaven all his life so to speak, that is why he complains of serving his father for many years.

Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

The prodigal son was very different, he lived a normal lifetime. He knowingly left home and went out in sin. It was then that he was joined to a citizen of that far country, which I believe represents Satan, as this person has no regard for him whatsoever, but puts him in a pig sty to feed his pigs. This is the most awful thing you could do to a Jew.

Luk 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.

So, the elder son arrives in heaven many years before his brother who lived a normal lifespan.

Now, that is how I interpret this parable.

All three parables in Luke 15 are one parable. No one was originally lost. The sheep was not originally lost, the silver piece was not originally lost, the prodigal son was not originally lost.

These parables absolutely contradict and refute Original Sin which teaches we are all born lost, born dead in sin. To be born dead is a direct contradiction itself and cannot be true. We speak of stillborn children who are born dead, but they were alive at one time. You MUST first be alive to die, non-living things cannot die.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Correct, the elder son is a child who died before he knew right from wrong and was capable of sin. He has been in heaven all his life so to speak, that is why he complains of serving his father for many years.

Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

The prodigal son was very different, he lived a normal lifetime. He knowingly left home and went out in sin. It was then that he was joined to a citizen of that far country, which I believe represents Satan, as this person has no regard for him whatsoever, but puts him in a pig sty to feed his pigs. This is the most awful thing you could do to a Jew.

Luk 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.

So, the elder son arrives in heaven many years before his brother who lived a normal lifespan.

Now, that is how I interpret this parable.

All three parables in Luke 15 are one parable. No one was originally lost. The sheep was not originally lost, the silver piece was not originally lost, the prodigal son was not originally lost.

These parables absolutely contradict and refute Original Sin which teaches we are all born lost, born dead in sin. To be born dead is a direct contradiction itself and cannot be true. We speak of stillborn children who are born dead, but they were alive at one time. You MUST first be alive to die, non-living things cannot die.

Where I disagree with you is that those parables contradict Original Sin....
Certainly, I think they are more in keeping with a view that Original Sin is false, but I think we have a problem if we think of that elder son as an infant:

Why, would an infant, in heaven with God take no pleasure in the salvation of an adult?
Why would an infant safe with the father have anger towards God for his mercy towards his own flesh and blood?

By this reasoning, I think an infant forever with God would object to the salvation of his own parents or surviving siblings....

I don't think the "elder son" has to personify a real "PERSON" but an attitude which is in contradistinction to the moral of the story and the character of God's love and mercy.

 

[Van]

Yes, but this says when we actively sin we are separated from God. It does not say we are born that way.

We have been all through this several times. Why keep evading the obvious. Is being separated from God spiritual death. Yes, of course. Are we made sinners through Adam's sin, rather than our own? Yes, of course. Therefore, we are conceived in a separated from God state, thus we "die" spiritually at conception.

Correct, we spiritually die the moment we sin. We are not born spiritually dead. In fact, you must first be alive to die, so it is impossible to be spiritually dead unless you were first spiritually alive. Things that were never alive cannot be said to be dead.

This simply ignores the forgoing.

a) We die spiritually at conception. Basis, we were made sinners through Adam's sin, not our own.
b) When God forms our spirit within us, it is formed "in Adam" because we are "in Adam" and thus we"die spiritually" when conceived.​

Yes, we are made alive together with Christ, but this does not prove we are born dead. We spiritually die when we knowingly sin as Adam did, and we are made alive AGAIN when we receive Christ.

Scripture does not say anywhere that we die when we sin like Adam. It says by the transgression of the one, the many were made sinners. Thus the assertion spiritual death is the result of numerous transgressions is without support in scripture.

The question is WHEN a person becomes "in Adam". No one can be spiritually dead unless they were first spiritually alive. When a person knowingly chooses to sin they die and become "in Adam". This is when they are "made" sinners. Likewise, those who believe as Jesus did are "made" righteous.

Again when we are made sinners, at conception, we are separated from God, thus we die spiritually at conception. You are simply ignoring that we are made sinners by the transgression of the one, not by the transgressions of the many.

Your interpretation of Romans 5:19 is inconsistent with Paul's form of argument used, you believe all men are unconditionally made sinners because of Adam, whereas only a few men are conditionally made righteous by Christ. That is inconsistent.

I have dealt with this false charge numerous times, yet here it is again, ignoring my rebuttals. This is simply stonewalling, repeating the same bogus arguments as if you cannot address the truth.

a) The many in Adam are unconditionally made sinners.
b)The many in Christ are unconditionally made holy.​

See how consistent and simple and plain, obvious this is!!!! The "many" refers to two separate groups, not one group. Therefore, yet again I have demonstrated to anyone who reads this, my view, shared with the vast majority of Christians, is consistent.

The only consistent view that fits reality is that all men who conditionally sin as Adam did are "made sinners", and all men who conditionally believe as Jesus did are "made righteous".

This view does not fit the reality presented in scripture. Scripture does not say we sin like Adam (lots of separate sins) but by the transgression of the one, the many were made sinners. You are simply ignoring the obvious over and over.


Here is the rewrite according to those who deny original sin, "but by the example of the one, the many were made sinners when they followed the example." Not how it reads.

 

[webdog]

I think we have a mantra, "no where in scripture does it say" this or that.

15 then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death.

Kind of hard to give birth to something that is already there.

1) Sin causes a separation from our holy God. "But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear." (Isaiah 59:2)

This verse actually refutes Augustinianism.

2) When we sin, we do not immediately physically die. Adam did not physically die on the day he sinned, he lived for years and years. But on the day Adam sinned, he died. So that leaves spiritual death.

No, it leaves death being introduced into the world, both physical and spiritual.

3) Thus scripture says we are made alive together with Christ, teaching that when we are separated from God we are not alive, thus dead.

This doesn't say anything about the timing of death. Being created dead is an impossibility as death is the ending of life.

In summary on the day Adam sinned he was separated from God, and this constituted his spiritual death. And so all who are in Adam are in a separated from God state, referred to as spiritually dead. To be made sinners, and sinners are separated from God, is to be made in a separated from God spiritually dead state. It is a lock.

So all in Adam being dead means the same all in Christ are made alive. IF the first group are all mankind, so must the second. The sentence structure allows for nothing else.

 

[Inspector Javert]

^^Nice Post W.D.^^ :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

Where I disagree with you is that those parables contradict Original Sin....
Certainly, I think they are more in keeping with a view that Original Sin is false, but I think we have a problem if we think of that elder son as an infant:

I don't believe infants who die will be infants for eternity in heaven, do you?

Why, would an infant, in heaven with God take no pleasure in the salvation of an adult?
Why would an infant safe with the father have anger towards God for his mercy towards his own flesh and blood?

Well, I am not so sure he was angry because his brother was saved, but because he had served his father for "these many years" and yet no fatted calf was killed for him. There was never a celebration for the elder son, and he seemed to resent this.

By this reasoning, I think an infant forever with God would object to the salvation of his own parents or surviving siblings....

Well, we have the parable of people who were hired to work. Those who worked all day were somewhat envious of those who worked a single hour but received the same pay.

Mat 12:12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

It is not that these persons are saved, but have been treated equally when they have not served as long.

I don't think the "elder son" has to personify a real "PERSON" but an attitude which is in contradistinction to the moral of the story and the character of God's love and mercy.

Parables teach spiritual truths, but they are hidden to unbelievers. It is possible they can have several meanings.

The parables in Luke 15 all have one thing in common, no one was originally lost. The shepherd had 100 sheep, one became lost. When it was recovered, there was more joy over this one sinner who repented, than 99 just persons which need no repentance.

I really do not believe Jesus would speak of persons that could not possibly exist. This would not be a spiritual truth, but falsehood, and Jesus never spoke falsehood. I believe these 99 just persons who never went astray and need no repentance must represent someone. I believe the notion that they represent the Pharisees ridiculous. Jesus was very harsh to the Pharisees and never implied they were just and needed no repentance. Doesn't fit at all. Even the ratio of 99 to one sinner who repents rules out the Pharisees. But have there been many babies and children who have died before they could sin? YES, BILLIONS. The ratio fits.

The silver piece was the same, it was not originally lost.

The prodigal son was the same, he was not originally lost.

So, these parables absolutely destroy Original Sin. They all show persons originally belonging to God, but later going out in sin and becoming lost. When one repents, he is now FOUND, he is now ALIVE AGAIN.

Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Jesus twice emphasized that the prodigal was alive again. I believe this parable was given to directly counter the false doctrine of Original Sin which the Lord knew would come.

There have been billions of children who have died in the womb or shortly after death. People have questioned what becomes of these children for thousands of years. Perhaps the scriptures always told us the answer, but folks are unaware. Perhaps.

You know, not everyone is married to the Lamb, there are also guests at the wedding. Who are these persons? I have not studied this out, but these persons who never went astray and need no repentance might be those persons. These guests must come from somewhere.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I don't believe infants who die will be infants for eternity in heaven, do you?

No.
I don't think any distinction between one or the other exists at all....
We won't even remain married to our lovely wives as such, so I don't think that distinction will exist.

I don't see how that is particularly relevant though.

Well, I am not so sure he was angry because his brother was saved, but because he had served his father for "these many years" and yet no fatted calf was killed for him. There was never a celebration for the elder son, and he seemed to resent this.

O.K...
But now we have another problem...
The elder son "served the father"....
as I recall, he came out from the fields WORKING, and not generally enjoying his life of servitude...
Reasonably, the younger son's abandonment made life harder on the elder son, and he didn't express infinite joy about his life of servitude to his father...

Since when is serving our creator a hard life in the field something to balk at?
Since when will we point in eternal bliss to our serving the creator as some form of un-palatable "service".

We will serve our maker ineternity....make no mistake....

We will love him, we will worship him, and he will love and adore us....
But we will SERVE him.

The elder son didn't particularly LIKE his service...it was a burden, not a joy.

Things quite likely became more difficult for him once the younger son abandoned his post....

The elder brother was QUITE PIQUED about the royal reception his younger brother received...he suffered from some measure of self-worth and jealousy and had absolutely NO JOY...that his younger brother was back again..

If we are going to absorb the account as a real scenario in ALL of it's gory details, than we must absorb the elder brother's account too... The elder brother's attitude was self-important, jealous and self-righteous.

I do agree with D.H.K....that the elder brother was quite WICKED...not Godly with his attitude about his younger brother's good fortune.

Well, we have the parable of people who were hired to work. Those who worked all day were somewhat envious of those who worked a single hour but received the same pay.

And that was a WRONG attitude....
It doesn't matter that you were a God-fearing Baptist deacon for 45 years....God will save the murdering child-rapist if he cries for mercy on his death-bed....
TRUST ME...
That truth balks against every bone in my soul...but the most aggregious of sinners who cry out for mercy even at the most selfish and self-serving point in their miserable lives, will indeed find MERCY...
That's the point.
I don't like it, and I wouldn't show it, but God does.
He does so because JUSTICE has been served.

He chose to punish his only begotten son instead of the sinner. But, that serves the demands of justice.
Until I die, I'll never agree with his decision...but that's what he did, and he delights in mercy that much.

Parables are designed to basically teach ONE major central truth...not to break down all of Theology as we know it....

They are analogous..
Some of their analogies break down rather quickly...
It's the single truth which matters....not the details.
They are one particular literary method. They aren't meant to expound all Theological truth in detail.

It is not that these persons are saved, but have been treated equally when they have not served as long.
Parables teach spiritual truths, but they are hidden to unbelievers. It is possible they can have several meanings.

The parables in Luke 15 all have one thing in common, no one was originally lost. The shepherd had 100 sheep, one became lost. When it was recovered, there was more joy over this one sinner who repented, than 99 just persons which need no repentance.

Parables do teach truth...but usually one CENTRAL truth...
If you had 99 coins...you wouldn't value the ONE COIN enough to LEAVE the other coins to search for it....
Similarly...
if you had 100 lambs....
Then the loss of one is not particularly signifigant.

A "Good" shepherd wouldn't "LEAVE" 99 other sheep in order to search for ONE..

It's rather absurd.

Sheep reproduce fast enough......a thoughtful Shepherd wouldn't "leave" (translate this as leave them un-protected) 99 of them in order to bring back only one lamb...

Neither would a rich man "leave" 99 coins in order to find only 1...

That's what gives the parable the central truth.
I don't disagree that these parables are far MORE consistent with a non-Augustinian view...
But, I don't think they prove it.

I really do not believe Jesus would speak of persons that could not possibly exist.

He did.

No shepherd would "leave" 99 sheep in order to save only 1:

He called himself the "good" shepherd...no "good" shepherd would do that. That's why the Jews never understood his parables.
He didn't want them to understand his parables....

He was blinding them on purpose.

The prodigal son was the same, he was not originally lost.

Inasmuch as I do not subscribe to the doctrine of "Original Sin" I do agree that the prodigal was not originally lost...so I believe that parable is consistent with a view which denies the doctrine of "Original Sin"...

What I do NOT think...
Is that any infants in heaven will consider their service to the father as an un-happy burden which breeds an attitude of jealousy and resentment...

If you want the elder son to represent real persons, than you must account for their attitude with a realistic scenario just like the younger son...
That's not a realistic scenario.

I don't believe anyone who is "Ever with" the father resents their station and feels jealousy when he shows mercy towards the repentant sinner.

So, these parables absolutely destroy Original Sin. They all show persons originally belonging to God, but later going out in sin and becoming lost. When one repents, he is now FOUND, he is now ALIVE AGAIN.

At mere face value, I tend to agree....
But, (much as I detest saying it) they don't strictly contradict "Original Sin" even though I might like them to.

Look...

The ENTIRE BODY of Scripture SCREAMS against the doctrine of Original Sin...no amount of adding parabolist evidence to the argument will help..

You could find a verse in Scripture which states "Original Sin" as a Christian Doctrine is a false one....and it wouldn't matter. That's human nature.

Those who are married to the idea simply haven't yet found the moral fortitude to stand against what they believe to be Centuries of teaching...
Hey...
Rebellion isn't their forte'...
It's mine though....That's why abandoning the doctrine is quite easy for me.
It's easier for some to abandon convention than others....
For some, it's quite difficult:
It's not so easy for others who have always been taught that it's tatamount to heresy to deny it.
Give them time.


Continued after this:

 

[Inspector Javert]

Continued....

Jesus twice emphasized that the prodigal was alive again. I believe this parable was given to directly counter the false doctrine of Original Sin which the Lord knew would come.

Again...I agree that that parable is not in line with "Original Sin"...but one doesn't need to believe that the elder brother represents infants to think so...
If the proponents of "Original Sin" can't realize that the younger son was

ONCE ALIVE...

DIED.....

AND IS ALIVE AGAIN...

Than....they won't see it no matter how the elder brother is interpreted.

I agree that Original Sin is destroyed by the Scriptures....I just don't see the parables quite as you do.

There have been billions of children who have died in the womb or shortly after death. People have questioned what becomes of these children for thousands of years. Perhaps the scriptures always told us the answer, but folks are unaware. Perhaps.

I think it's clear.....
Infants who die before they know the law are not sinners and need no salvation as they are not sinners.

I agree with your over-all view (I created a thread to support it)...

People who adhere to Original Sin invent preposterous and absurd special dispensations whereby God "saves" infants outside of confessing Christ....

They are ridiculous, they exist only in the imagination, and not one word of Scripture backs their claim...

But they say that somehow, an infant who can't call upon the name of the Lord, is somehow "saved" from their sin...

It's stupid beyond recognition...and there isn't one PEEP from Scripture about it, but they say it...

But, they accept "Original Sin" like they accept the "Blood Atonement".
You are fighting against literally Centuries of conditioning.
It's not an easy fight.

You know, not everyone is married to the Lamb, there are also guests at the wedding.

I agree.

Who are these persons?

I believe they are the saints not of the "Church".

I believe the "bride" is the Church, and the guests are non-church saints...and John the Baptist is the "friend of the bridegroom".....

I actually believe that MOSES will be "at" the wedding as a guest, but not a member of the bride...because of the dispensation in which he lived.

I have not studied this out,

Actually, I believe it to be irrelevant to this issue...

I maintain that the "bride" is uniquely the New Testament Church, and the saints of all dispensations may make up the guests etc.... but that delves into Ecclesiology, Eschatology...and a million other "ogies" we don't want to get into for now.
Plus...
It's actually quite possible that I'm smoking crack on that view, so.....
Let's let that one go for now.

but these persons who never went astray and need no repentance might be those persons. These guests must come from somewhere.

Agreed, I think they come from other dispensations of grace not to include the era of the New Testament Church.
...As in Job is one, ditto Abraham... etc..
You are right that "Original Sin" is false doctrine.
Augustine was a Manichean heretic, and also an arrogant rube, quite frankly, as was Jerome....
But, I don't think the parables are the way to argue this point.

 

[Winman]

Wow, those were looooooong posts, so I will not even attempt to answer every point, but I will address this.

Some seem to believe that in heaven everything will be perfect, but I do not share this belief. I believe we will still require grace and forgiveness in heaven to a degree.

You believe it is a sin to complain as DHK said, perhaps. But we see complaining in heaven.

Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

We see saved persons here complaining, they are crying out to God to avenge them for being put to death for serving the Lord on earth. The Lord is very patient with these folks and gives them a white robe and tells them they should rest for a season.

We also see in Revelation 22 that the tree of life's leaves are for the healing of the nations.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

We have been conditioned to believe heaven will be absolutely perfect, and perhaps it will be. But perhaps some things will still go wrong, perhaps we will still be able to get ill, or injure ourselves, I don't know, but the leaves of the tree of life are used for "healing" so it might be possible.

One of the funniest glimpses into heaven for me is when God asked the angels who would persuade wicked king Ahab to go down and fight at Ramothgilead.

1 Kin 22:20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Perhaps there is nothing funny here, but I see this almost like an episode of Dilbert. All the angels talk among each other, but no one can come up with a good idea of how to get Ahab to go fight this battle where the Lord knows he will be killed.

Then one angel comes forward with his idea, he will be a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab's wicked false prophets. This is Wally to me. :laugh:



Perhaps this was not funny, I seem to see humor everywhere. But it seems to show that heaven is not exactly perfect, we see angels here scratching their heads trying to come up with a good idea. That doesn't seem to be "perfect" to me. And sometimes folks might complain a bit in heaven as well. I don't think we will be robots incapable of making mistakes in heaven.

 

[Winman]

I don't believe infants who die will be infants for eternity in heaven, do you?

No.
I don't think any distinction between one or the other exists at all....
We won't even remain married to our lovely wives as such, so I don't think that distinction will exist.

I don't see how that is particularly relevant though.

I was simply addressing DHK's objection that the elder son could not be an infant, because he is a grown man in the parable.

I believe in heaven we will all be adults. I don't believe a newborn baby who dies and goes to heaven will remain a newborn baby for eternity. He would be an adult in heaven, able to carry on a conversation.

DHK seems to suggest if you die as a baby, you must remain a baby. This will not be good for those who died as fetuses in their mother's womb as many billions have.

 

[DHK]

I was simply addressing DHK's objection that the elder son could not be an infant, because he is a grown man in the parable.

I believe in heaven we will all be adults. I don't believe a newborn baby who dies and goes to heaven will remain a newborn baby for eternity. He would be an adult in heaven, able to carry on a conversation.

DHK seems to suggest if you die as a baby, you must remain a baby. This will not be good for those who died as fetuses in their mother's womb as many billions have.

Your interpretation is absurd. Everyone on the board can see this. The parable is not talking of heaven. You have introduced that.
The definition of a parable:
An earthly story that gives a heavenly (spiritual) meaning.

You are perverting the parable. The parable has to make sense.
It is a story. It has real characters. It was told so everyone could understand it. It was told as if it really took place. Jesus told stories or parables like this all the time.
There are no infants in this parable. There is no mention of heaven in this parable. You have inserted those things in the parable at your own will and wish and have perverted the meaning of it. BTW, there is no mention of OS either. It is irrelevant to the teaching of the parable. Why bring it up at all?

An elder son is not an infant!! Let common sense prevail here.
The younger son was old enough to take his inheritance, take a journey and go and spend his inheritance, come back and find repentance.
Now you say that someone older than that man is an infant. Totally absurd!! Totally impossible. Infants are not older than men. Where does that kind of thinking even enter your mind?
No, the elder son cannot be an infant. That goes contrary to the parable that Jesus was telling. Use some common sense.

It doesn't matter what you believe about heaven. Jesus didn't talk about heaven. You introduced heaven and infants into this parable as an aside. Why not introduce Farraris, and motorcycles as well? They are just as irrelevant.

"If you die as a baby you must remain as a baby." Don't slander. Quote me where I said that, or retract it. Don't read your perverted theology into what I said. It is a parable. There are no infants, no heaven, not even original sin, mentioned in the parable. You have gone off the deep end with this parable. Go to a book on parables and study it. Stop making yourself look so silly on the board.